3 ms·
People should note that yesterday's anonymous pastebin "Don't use MongoDB" article was apparently a hoax, if you look through the comments. (At least so claims
by calibraxis 15y ago
People should note that yesterday's anonymous pastebin "Don't use MongoDB" article was apparently a hoax, if you look through the comments. (At least so claims the troll who posted it.)
(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081)
I used MongoDB last year and it worked fine for me. (I maintained it for about 9 months.) But of course I can't generalize that to other people's experiences, so YMMV. ;) I just used it squarely in the use-case which everyone mentions — many "well-behaved" writes which occur when no one's reading. Multiple replicas. Leveraged its indices. It wasn't an authoritative source of data, so in principle I could repopulate it. Dealt with failure modes, so missing data wasn't catastrophic.
I think articles like this are useful; when evaluating software, one thing I do is assume it's buggy and its proponents are deceivers. (Whether or not they intend to deceive. I can imagine being corrupted by wanting something to be true.) So among other things, I hunt down criticisms. Had this article been around last year, I'm sure I would've found it a useful hub in doing this due diligence.
(The actual thesis, of what the version number should be, is not so important to me... Version numbers are in some sense arbitrary.)
- rdtsc 15y agoA hoax or a double-hoax? Original post was this by nomoremongo: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3201772 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3201772 Post actually discussed was: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081 Very clever. The way I understand, apparently nomoremongo wrote it but it was reposted quickly by nmongo (http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nmongo http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nmongo) in hopes that they could then become the top post, so later on they can yell in all caps how it was a hoax and thus discredit the original post. You know nmongo, if you are trying to help MongoDB you just did the opposite. I've said this many times here before, but the best marketing is your competitors stupid marketing. You are providing stupid marketing for MongoDB and you are hurting it. > People should note that yesterday's anonymous pastebin "Don't use MongoDB" article was apparently a hoax, Now another question isb do you know that it wasn't a hoax but continue in the same vein in hopes to still save the day, or you actually believe it was a hoax?
- latch 15y agoThere was always something suspicious about an anonymous post lacking any verifiable facts. Then, 10gen's CTO states that none of it resonates with any support issues they've had. Then, add this. I know exactly what it will take for me to believe the pastbin story. I'm curious, what will it take for you to not believe it?
- rdtsc 15y agoI agree this is a shady post. Even "how" it was posted is shady. So I am not standing 100% behind it. It is just more of a gut instinct. At the same time, it got on the front page because the story resonated and made sense to others. There were quite a few people who commented how "oh yeah I've had problems with lost data". And I think that is what pushed the post's popularity more than the original pastebin. So the discussion got a life of its own after a while. Followed by response posts and response posts to those and so on.
- calibraxis 15y agoWell, it's outlier info from an unreliable source. And possibly outdated too. So if I were evaluating MongoDB, I'd probably just discard this info. (Or skim it for whatever tiny scraps of technical info came out of the discussions.)
- willvarfar 15y agoDon't skim the last paragraph, which was very much the point of the whole article, and the take wasn't so technical.